Is the NRA working for casual gun-owners, many of whom, according to polling, support tougher restrictions on gun ownership— or is the NRA serving the gunmaker lobby— which is purely interested in policies that will promote greater gun sales and more profits? Any gun control policy debate should begin with this question.

As John likes to say, the NRA isn’t about casual gun-owners – they’re simply the NRA’s kinder and gentler “beard.” Exactly right. If gun sales is the NRA’s true job, they’re as much a perp in the Lanza shooting as Lanza (say I).

43 Responses to ““If only Adam Lanza’s mom had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this””

You anti gunners do realize that Obama is the number 1 gun salesman in our country right? And the rest of you with the “should be able to live in a civilized society”, well guess what – This is civilization, and has been since it’s inception. People kill people. Get over it. Buy a gun. Get trained. Pray you never have to use it… or is praying a “bad” thing on this site?

His mother should have properly secured her firearms only the sane trustworthy adults should have access my father secures his firearms as an ex-deputy he put me through a year of safety training before i even got near a gun i started with a 22 single shot then moved up to a .40 cal. glock 23 and then to an m-4 carbine and now i have my own shotgun i may only have access to a gun in an emergency or at the range proper security and training is crucial.

No, using phrases such as “typical gun-control promoting retard” offends us. Not to mention insulting the writer, the blog host, and the other commenters.
You are allowed to have a different opinion. That opinion could well be made without insulting everyone else.

Good job deleting my previous post, does common sense offend you? Let’s think about why she would not have shot her son… he was her son. Any mother would be trying to talk her son out of what he was about to do until her dying breath, killing him would not be an option in her mind. Please think before you post such nonsense, thanks.

Such ignorance, from a typical gun-control promoting retard. Let’s think about why she would have not shot and killed her son… he was her son. She would try to talk him out of what he was about to do, and die trying to do so, rather than take her own son’s life. That would be called being a mother. Would you self-proclaimed intellectuals please pull your heads out of your asses, thanks.

take your opinion out of it and it is a numbers game more guns….more shots fired more people hit, more chances of accidents or worse ,owning a gun does not make you safe. this incident proves that owning a gun does not defend anyones family. I am liberal and you can keep your guns but I will not own one. I owned one in the pass but I got over the excitement and thrill of the power of owning a gun. but I to saw they only lead to trouble. who can predict when anyone will snap. when your neighbor boings your wife or your wife leaves you. and now add alcohol or road rage I know from my gun club in the past that most gun owners are waiting to use their guns on humans. they fantasize being attacked and retaliating.

but gun safe zones are cosmetic only, just like the airport TSA screening by knuckleheads who aren’t trained and make minimum wage. Our great security buy we are really too cheap to pay for the real thing. We have lots of money for the latest jets but not for controlling guns. 30,000 died in gun related deaths. There are 100 million handguns and 2.5 million concealed carry permits. Total number of guns out there somewhere is over 300 million. You had dinner last night in a diner and probably at least one person had a gun on his hip whether with a permit or not. It is going to take real balls for this government to take back the guns. What has to happen is the punishment has to fit the crime. All guns not in gun safes and stolen 1 year in jail–no parole. gun used in crime like holding up a gas station—15 years no parole. gun used in murder–life in prison no parole. No exceptions. no pass for athletes, no pass for people connected. When we start getting serious with punishment we then offer gun amnesty and buy back the guns. I willing will pay more taxes to buy back the guns. Then you limit how many rounds of ammunition you can buy. you take all this doomsday prepper stuff off our tvs. you censor the Glen Becks of the world (and Hannity’s and O”reillys and Limbaugh’s. The right to disagree is American but not the right to be racist to pit one group against another, to spew vile hatred for the President, regardless of what party he represents, that has become ingrained in our culture. We also have to go after the ultra wealthy who we bailed out, the banks who launder drug money and no one goes to jail. They pay too. I know this all sounds harsh and right wing. I am a card carrying life long member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I am left of left but this issue of guns and all that feeds into it is destroying our country. In the end it is all about money. Remember Bush’s line at a fund raiser. “I am happy to be here with the have’s and the have more’s”
I have travelled exensively since the early 60’s and been to almost every country. The value of a human life in a lot of them is simply nothing. We are fast becoming one of those countries. Two days ago a fellow worker said he was following two cars and the car behind started flashing lights and honking. Pat had no where to go. they got to a light and the driver of the car behind got out with a hand gun and threatened him. This is what we have become.
On a final note, i have disconnected the horns on my vehicles, I don’t go to movies, I don’t go to Malls unless at off hours and I seldom look people dead in the eye when I am out. Make me a pussy, probably but you never know what is going to set someone off.

My thought is the hypocrisy of courts and legislators cowering behind xray machines and strip searches, etc. while lifting not one finger to protect the population at large. Dodge City in the 19th century was entirely a gun safe zone. We all should live in a gun safe zone. The idea that one can go to a mall or a movie theater or an elementary school and be subjected to mass slaughter is simply outrageous.

Exactly. If Victoria Lott had instead taken the time to get her gun out of it’s secure location (so her students wouldn’t find it) and load it instead of stashing her students in the cupboards and closets and lying to the gunman carrying an assault rifle about their whereabouts – how many more children would be dead? Most of us don’t want to be anywhere near a gun, nor do they want their kids anywhere near them. Teachers have about 10,000 other issues to worry about in a school week about their students – they shouldn’t be required to become Jason Bourne to teach 1st grade English.

If only she just owned a small pistol for self defense instead of being a “gun hobbyist” who also shared her love of shooting assault weapons for fun with her emotionally disturbed son. At least more people would have made it through this tragedy alive. What I find most infuriating is that these gun lovers who are freaking out at the prospect of semi/fully automatic weapons banned, aren’t really worried about a communist dictatorship taking root here or Al Qaeda parachuting into their back yard. They use that BS as an excuse to own these ridiculous weapons but the truth is they just like playing Rambo on the weekends, they just like the rush from playing with them. So children have to die so they can have their toys.

I’m a well-armed retired teacher who spent 26 years in the
classroom. During my career I knew perhaps three teachers whom I’d have
wanted to be trained and armed during the school day. By the way, where would armed teachers keep their weapons so kids couldn’t get to them?

Great idea, nicho, unfortunately I don’t think there would be many gun owner takers. After all, they might get shot in such a place. Maybe it could be made into an amusement park type idea where they could rent body armor as well. For a “modest fee” of course.

Since we now have “First Amendment Zones,” how about “Second Amendment Zones.” Instead of turning all our places of public assembly into maximum security prisons, make anyone who wants to own, possess, or fire a weapon do so in a Second Amendment Zone — secluded, enclosed by walls, with restricted access, where the staff are all heavily armed, there are periodic lockdowns, and metal detectors upon entry and exit. That way, gun aficionados can exercise their Second Amendment “rights” to their hearts content and the rest of us can walk the streets , go to school, go to church, go to the mall, and walk the streets in relative safety, exercising our right to pursuit of happiness.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I wouldn’t want to send my children to a school where metal detectors and armed teachers are a necessary part of life. In a civilized society, one should never have to even consider your kid getting shot at school, much less take such absurd steps to prevent it.

Anyone who privately sells a gun to another person or in any way transfers ownership without all the background check and licensing requirements that are mandated by law for registered gun shops, or fails to secure their gun in such a manner that it is stolen, when that gun is then used to commit a crime, the original owner should be held criminally liable for any act committed using that gun alongside the shooter.

More gun safe zones won’t stop people from carrying guns there. No one should have the right except police officers to carry guns especially concealed carry permits. Guns are for killing period. If you carry except on the way to hunting or home you are going to go to jail.

Interesting idea. Of course, the way it would work out is very similar to the way it works out with car insurance: people who can’t afford it, stop paying for it, and then can’t register their cars. End result: a bunch of people driving around in unregistered, uninsured cars. The state of California estimates 1 in 7 drivers are uninsured.

Polling has been done on NRA members, not by the NRA itself… and they in general agree with more extensive background checks, closing the gun show/internet/et al loopholes, and more harsh punishments for firearm violations. It’s the organization itself, which is really a lobbyist organization for manufacturers and large-scale sellers, and not an advocate for individual gun owners, that is against all of these things.

I should have predicted this — of course this person wasn’t alone, lots of people posting on articles about the Clackamas shooting saying that the shooter was “confronted” by a concealed-carry bystander which caused him to stop shooting and kill himself. Only problem of course is that this isn’t supported by any facts. The bystander never claims to have “confronted” anyone, but did say that the shooter’s gun seemed to have jammed, as he was inspecting the rifle and hitting it on the side. Never let facts get in the way of a good argument I guess..

I just don’t understand why they think that by ignoring the problem that they aren’t politicizing it. Manufactured sympathy means nothing if you don’t want to do something to prevent it from happening again. Suggesting that more risk to children and more senseless violence is the best solution is ridiculous.

That would be the standard response for anyone with any sense, armed or not. Take cover. The only people who aren’t going to have this immediate reaction are those with military and/or law enforcement training to learn how to overcome it. The action hero fantasy some people have simply doesn’t happen in the real world… and what is going to happen the first time someone packing does decide to shoot back? Maybe they’ll be lucky and successfully incapacitate the threat… maybe they’ll get shot themselves. Maybe they’ll accidentally shoot another innocent person. Maybe they will be mistaken for the original threat and be shot by a third party. The variables are too many to calculate, but no matter how you want to spin it, the chances of coming to a good outcome are slim, at best.

Great thought, unfortunately they can’t even agree that automatic weapons should be banned. Our pre-occupation with guns, war and killing gets in the way of rational thinking. How about the following idea:
every gun owner applies and gets law enforcement to do a real background check
once approved he gets a photo id card with an electronic strip on the back
the strip says what guns he owns with serial number
the permits the gun owner to only buy bullets for that gun/s no empty cartridges, powder, etc.

limit the number of shells and magazines an owner can have
every gun owner required by law to have a gun safe.

Punishments
any guns owned without law enforcement controlled safety course–2 years in jail

any guns owned without permit-2 years in jail

any guns stolen not in a gun safe-3 years mandatory in jail
any gun used in a crime–15 years mandatory no parole then charged with the crime
any gun dealer breaking these rules–$25,000 fine and 2 years in jail

I know it seems very harsh. Ask yourself this. What if your kid had died in Ct.

I own guns none of that would bother me and I will be glad to take the safety course tomorrow.
Don’t close your mind we can’t get to this tomorrow but we have to start somewhere or it may be our kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews and then the endless cycle would start with all the reasons why we can’t. Funny we landed a man on the moon 40 years ago when everyone said it couldn’t be done.

First, there needs to be a liability insurance requirement for gun ownership. It’s not that I think parents can be compensated for the loss of a child, but . . . I do think insurance companies are more responsible than governments in determining which adults are responsible and which are not and who must pay X for coverage and who must pay Y, and where are your guns kept and is there a lock and who has the key, etc., etc., etc. Also automatics and semi-automatics might have prohibitive insurance requirements as opposed to a simple “hunting” firearm.

Second, the Constitution is all about militia and these militias need to be mustered, and the firearms need to be checked for safety, and the owners need to be trained in use and in safety, etc.

Third, there need to be more gun safe zones. It’s outrageous that Congress, the Court and the White House are so buy defending a right while cowering behind extreme security and xrays, etc. In Dodge City in the 19th century one was required to check ones guns at the city limits. It was constitutional then and its constitutional now.

It’s outrageous that schools and churches and shopping malls and movie theaters all need their own xray machines and excess security. If this is what the Constitution requires, those bearing the arms should pay for the security.

This pretty much gets to the heart of NRA darkness, crazed paranoia which ends up with one final conclusion, pre-emptive strikes. The only way that Adam’s mom or Jovan’s Girlfriend could have conceivably “defended herself” with a gun would have been to shoot first.

cappy2, We’ve been having the same discussion in our home. Gun insurance must be as mandatory as car insurance. We did throw around the idea of the NRA being financially responsible for all damages committed by firearms of members not insured. A hail mary for sure but you’re right, we need to start somewhere. Start with reaching for the moon and negotiate from there.

Even in the wake of all the recent tragedies, gun control legislation would still be a long uphill struggle so I suggest taking a page out of the right wing playbook as relates to their war against women’s issues. They know they can’t overturn Roe v. Wade so instead they make access to contraception and abortion expensive and demeaning. Lets do the same with firearms. 1.) Levy a BIG federal and state tax on licenses, firearms and ammunition. 2.) Require mandatory firearm insurance, a separate policy on every gun sold. If a gun is stolen and not reported within 24 hours, the premiums quadruple. A small beginning but a beginning nonetheless.

Had to leave my high school alumni Facebook site. The only mantra there is “don’t politicize this,” meanwhile the discussion is all about concealed carry and if only the adults in the school were armed. (what could possibly go wrong in that situation?). Am officially divorcing the people I graduated with 40 years ago.

On another discussion board someone used the Portland mall shootings as proof that armed citizens are the answer, and shared a link to a news story about a witness with a pistol. Except that the witness unholstered his gun but realized he didn’t have a clear shot and might hit someone else, so took cover in a store. Smart guy, stupid argument.

And as soon as we have a serious discussion about all this, gun and ammo sales will skyrocket, just as the gunmakers planned. Remember when we had an oil shortage (?) in the 70’s, and we lowered speed limits all summer ro reduce usage? Remember that lives were also saved that summer as acccidents decreased? Why cannot we not BAN all gun and ammo sales, as of today, for the foreseeable future, as we work out the best way to handle things? Shut it down..no gun’shows,’ no internet sales, no ammo at KMART. Done. Until the gun owners decide to admit there is a problem, and help us figure out solutions before more people die.